When someone calls TD a 'system RB' and a fraud player, IMO it would help immensely for that person to define what a great NFL RB is, what his attributes are, and players who fall into this category.

Also a great NFL RB, or a good/great NFL player generally speaking should not be defined as future HOFer, since there are many great players/talents throughout the league who aren't going to be in Canton.

A great RB is clearly one who's huge and runs really fast cause those are the only talents a runner can have, patience, balance, ball security, vision, shiftiness, etc, those are all just illusions people make up to pump up talentless hacks.

__________________
BK

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen

JPP is a better and more productive player than Brandon Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Is Shaun Hill a top 10 QB? Definitely not. Is he a top 20 one? Almost certainly.

I don't rely on my memory in making judgments. I have an extensive game library and one day I plan to create a website with scouting reports for every player since the merger. I can do that, because I actually analyze football.

This is just too funny, I picture an 80 year old JT talking to his grandchildren one day.

GC: "Grampy what did you do with your life?"

JT: "Well kiddo I recorded every NFL game on VHS tapes, so I could create a website with scouting reports for every player which I then spent years of my life doing."

GC: "But why would anyone care about scouting reports that you did, you have no football background?"

JT: "Well I did coach some 9 year olds back in my day so needless to say I have a pretty good eye for football talent, but I also wanted to trailblaze something new, I mean nobody had ever done an in depth scouting report of former 2002 Colts 3rd string TE Joe Dean Davenport had they? and I was the first!"

GC: "It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, what motivated you to do it?"

JT: "Well there were some strangers on the internet who said they knew more about football than I did, so I dedicated my life to proving them wrong! Who's laughing now huh!"

When someone calls TD a 'system RB' and a fraud player, IMO it would help immensely for that person to define what a great NFL RB is, what his attributes are, and players who fall into this category.

Also a great NFL RB, or a good/great NFL player generally speaking should not be defined as future HOFer, since there are many great players/talents throughout the league who aren't going to be in Canton.

The breakdown is rather simple.

The first priority is the back is technically sound. No excessive fumbling problems (this is what prevented Wendell Tyler from being an all-time great), and the ability to make the right cuts most of the time and follow the blocking the way it was drawn up (this is why I would never want Barry Sanders on my team, but that's another topic for another day).

Davis passes this first requirement, but so do the vast majority of running backs who play professional football.

Then we get to the physical attributes - there are 4 main ones that I look at, and one bonus attribute.

Burst, agility, power, elusiveness, and finishing speed (long speed). The last one is the bonus. Davis didn't have that, but that's not what I'm holding against him...unless posters who were 8 when Davis last carried the ball a significant number of times try to claim otherwise.

Davis, by definition, was a downhill/power runner. A between the tackles guy. But I can easily name 50 backs who are/were more powerful than him.

The argument someone might have is that Davis is quicker/more agile than a lot of those power runners, but I can also easily name 50 backs who were quicker/more agile than Davis.

And I can name plenty of running backs better in both attributes.

People here are looking purely at the numbers (and then hypocritically attacking me for doing the same), and hyping up his playoff numbers/awards to separate him from other running backs who have had a few big years in NFL history.

But a playoff game is still just a football game, in the end. If the Broncos' offensive line was flowing one way and cutting the backside pursuit, leaving the second level vacant and an obvious cutback lane on play after play, Davis was going to be effective, regardless of what game it was.

This is just too funny, I picture an 80 year old JT talking to his grandchildren one day.

GC: "Grampy what did you do with your life?"

JT: "Well kiddo I recorded every NFL game on VHS tapes, so I could create a website with scouting reports for every player which I then spent years of my life doing."

GC: "But why would anyone care about scouting reports that you did, you have no football background?"

JT: "Well I did coach some 9 year olds back in my day so needless to say I have a pretty good eye for football talent, but I also wanted to trailblaze something new, I mean nobody had ever done an in depth scouting report of former 2002 Colts 3rd string TE Joe Dean Davenport had they? and I was the first!"

GC: "It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through, what motivated you to do it?"

JT: "Well there were some strangers on the internet who said they knew more about football than I did, so I dedicated my life to proving them wrong! Who's laughing now huh!"

"Football background."

"Sonnnn, you ain't got no foot-BOWL background. When did you ever excel on a footbowl TAME?"

And my project has absolutely nothing to do with clowns on the internet. I just think there should be a historical NFL resource with more than just statistics.

Apparently this JT fellow is literally the only one in the planet with access to fully broadcasted game tape. At least that's the word on the street. Hey take that goon Terrell Davis for instance, I mean that 1997 AFC Championship game is just floating on YouTube. I mean, no way anyone else could have an extensive source of originally broadcasted material. Nope. YouTube is the only answer.

I keep hearing something about someone regarding a "JT"? Who is this fellow? Hmm...well, I did hear of one such tale of someone below the age of 30 that has been banned from countless forums claiming to have all world knowledge on NFL players well before the time they were even born...and at the same time criticizing other people of a similar age for not being able to have witnessed those very same players...hmmm...well what can I say, HyPoCrIsY iS gReAt.

But alas, I'm still at a loss of who this individual could be. Hmm...

Well anyways...oh hey look! It's Fred Taylor dressed up like his favorite icon Terrell Davis in the Super Bowl NOT making plays on the game's biggest stage. Guess he decided to enter the NFL Draft a year early. Psssh, look at all of those Packers helping him too! What a sham!

Hitting the holes when they're there? Ha! The only runningbacks that are special are the ones that break several tackles at the inception of every play and don't rely on their blocking at all. Vision? Patience? Cutback ability? Delusions of grandeur I say!!! It's so easy a caveman can do it!!!

JordanTaber if you insist other running backs in Denver put up comparable numbers, then show those players career numbers. Post them. And then compare them. While all those players were in Denver, at full health and starting RBs for the Denver Broncos. Please, I would love to see how they statistically compare to Davis' career numbers. Add in playoff games to regular season numbers. Just so its easier to grasp the full spectrum of Davis' success. I'd also venture to guess that Davis is still the Broncos all-time leading rusher in every significant category.

I like how you try to cover up some of those RBs failures. They got benched. All of them did. Portis was traded for a great player who wanted out of Washington. That was a blockbuster trade. He was, miraculously, able to keep his job for two full seasons unlike every other RB Shanahan had not named Terrell Davis. Maybe it had something to do with Portis just being a great player?

Shanahan became OVERCONFIDENT in his coaching abilities. After he traded Portis for a future first ballot Hall of Fame cornerback, the Broncos rushing offense began declining because he felt like he could put anyone in the backfield while still maintaining a Top 5 rushing attack. Although he had mild success and got production from a slew of average players, he sorely missed the type of RB Davis and Portis were for that team. The rushing offense was never the same. I don't have the stats in front of me, but after Portis was traded, the Broncos only ranked in the Top 10 in rushing, maybe, one other time (if memory serves me right). With Davis? I believe they were ranked in the Top 5 every year single year. At least one time they led the NFL in rushing while Davis was there.

Your argument that it was all the system and that 100 different backs could do what he did has proven to be false. No one has replicated the numbers he put up. No one. Not one RB let alone 100.

Your other argument that 50 other RBs were more powerful is silly and completely arbitrary. Davis had one of the best combinations of patience and burst I've ever seen. He set up his blocks as good as anyone. The angles he used while he was behind the line of scrimmage to set up defenders at the second and third levels was a rare attribute. Once he patiently waited for the hole to open, he was through the hole with a burst that caught defenders reaching and reacting late at the second level. Davis was a warrior to a similar degree that Martin was.

I respect Curtis Martin for the way he played although I never thought Martin was a Hall of Fame player when I was watching him. He was one of the toughest players I've ever watched. You could give him the ball 15 times in a row, and he would stay in the game expecting the ball for the 16th time. I think he was limited and never did anything great. Davis accomplished greatness. If Martin was on another team with a better line, maybe his career is different and maybe he has the platform to look better, or expose his best traits. Portis had the platform before going to Washington where he played behind an offensive line that was aging, and then fairly mediocre to below average with a terrible supporting cast offensively. Gibbs was a failure as a Head Coach.

Cam Newton is the most talented QB in the NFL right now. RGIII, Mike Vick and Aaron Rodgers are probably in the Top 5. Only one of those guys is actually in the discussion for best QB in the NFL. There are far less talented QBs playing that are significantly better than Newton and Vick.

I can't remember who said it, but they said you have great players, Hall of Fame players and then legendary players. I'd put Davis into the Hall of Fame. Martin? Great player with Hall of Fame stats. Davis had a legendary career in four years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Yep, looks like the 97 AFC Championship game to me.

No. That's the Super Bowl where Davis had almost 160 rushing yards and 3 TDs in just 3 quarters of play. While he was out the game the Broncos offense did nothing. Davis was the offense. They only won that game because of the running ability of Davis. The game where he was awarded the MVP. That means most valuable player. Which is exactly what he was to that offense.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PossibleCabbage

I would like it if there were more successful black Quarterbacks in the NFL...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

iamcandian lives in a cabin in the Yukon Territory and writes letters to railroad barons about the price of hard tack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorsBullsFan

I could possibly see Matthew Stafford Dropping out of the 1st round

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRavens

Tahj Boyd has the best fundamentals of any QB in this class, I think his game translates great to the NFL.

JordanTaber if you insist other running backs in Denver put up comparable numbers, then show those players career numbers. Post them. And then compare them.

Why would I do that? Why would anyone compare career numbers for someone with 4 years as a starter to someone with 1-2?

Quote:

While all those players were in Denver, at full health and starting RBs for the Denver Broncos. Please, I would love to see how they statistically compare to Davis' career numbers. Add in playoff games to regular season numbers. Just so its easier to grasp the full spectrum of Davis' success. I'd also venture to guess that Davis is still the Broncos all-time leading rusher in every significant category.

Yeah, Vinny Testaverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe threw for more career yards than Joe Montana. More than Steve Young, too.

Quote:

I like how you try to cover up some of those RBs failures. They got benched. All of them did.

On what planet is 1484 yards on 5.0 yards/carry with 15 TDs in 13 games considered a "failure?"

Or 1230 yards on 4.5 yards/carry in 13 games?

Or 1159 yards on 4.2 yards/carry in 12 games?

Or two backs combining for 1935 yards on 4.7 yards/carry and 20 TDs on the second ranked rushing attack in the NFL in 2005 (Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson) in 15 games?

Now, these backs certainly failed on other teams. And that is precisely the point.

Quote:

Portis was traded for a great player who wanted out of Washington. That was a blockbuster trade. He was, miraculously, able to keep his job for two full seasons unlike every other RB Shanahan had not named Terrell Davis. Maybe it had something to do with Portis just being a great player?

Why would you trade a back who just ran for 1591 yards on 5.5 yards/carry with 14 touchdowns in only 13 games only 2 years into his NFL career?

Those are superstar numbers. Superstar numbers from a 22-year-old player.

Why would the Broncos purposely create what seems like a hole at running back just to get a top corner?

And keep in mind, NFL teams don't do player-for-player trades very often. This isn't the NBA. The Broncos could have offered draft picks. Instead, they dealt Portis, the feature runner from their #2 ranked rushing attack, to complete a blockbuster NFL player-for-player trade that hadn't been seen in decades, and hasn't been seen since.

And what did they do to replace him? They took a back in the 2nd round (Bell), then plugged in Quentin Griffin to replace him to start the year, only to quickly replace him with another journeyman, Reuben Droughns, who went on to post 1230 yards on 4.5 per carry in 13 games.

It's also interesting to note that the Broncos were looking to trade Mike Anderson after his statistically-dazzling rookie season. Another young back putting up "franchise back" numbers, another off-season with Shanahan looking to deal him.

Quote:

Shanahan became OVERCONFIDENT in his coaching abilities. After he traded Portis for a future first ballot Hall of Fame cornerback, the Broncos rushing offense began declining because he felt like he could put anyone in the backfield while still maintaining a Top 5 rushing attack. Although he had mild success and got production from a slew of average players, he sorely missed the type of RB Davis and Portis were for that team. The rushing offense was never the same. I don't have the stats in front of me, but after Portis was traded, the Broncos only ranked in the Top 10 in rushing, maybe, one other time (if memory serves me right). With Davis? I believe they were ranked in the Top 5 every year single year. At least one time they led the NFL in rushing while Davis was there.

After they drafted Cutler, they started throwing the ball more and running it less (the last 2 years). But Shanahan never had any problems running the ball, regardless of who his running back was (or running backs were), as you can see by the yards per attempt figures.

Quote:

Your argument that it was all the system and that 100 different backs could do what he did has proven to be false. No one has replicated the numbers he put up. No one. Not one RB let alone 100.

It can't be proven false because there are more than 100 backs to have never been given a shot.

Of the guys given a shot, they were never given 4 years to match Davis's 4 year numbers. Portis was given 2 years and had better numbers his first 2 years than Davis did in his first 2 years.

All of the backs I've named, save the Tatum Bells and Selvin Youngs who were splitting carries the whole time, had better first year feature back numbers than Terrell Davis did in his rookie season. It's only fair to draw direct comparisons, isn't it?

I don't think all of these backs who only had 1 year as the feature guy should be compared to Davis's 4th and best season. Davis ran for 1117 yards on 4.7 yards/carry with 7 TDs as a rookie. Those are the numbers the one year guys should be compared to.

Especially when Mike Anderson was a rookie the same year he vastly exceeded those numbers (2000).

Quote:

Your other argument that 50 other RBs were more powerful is silly and completely arbitrary. Davis had one of the best combinations of patience and burst I've ever seen. He set up his blocks as good as anyone. The angles he used while he was behind the line of scrimmage to set up defenders at the second and third levels was a rare attribute. Once he patiently waited for the hole to open, he was through the hole with a burst that caught defenders reaching and reacting late at the second level. Davis was a warrior to a similar degree that Martin was.

I respect Curtis Martin for the way he played although I never thought Martin was a Hall of Fame player when I was watching him. He was one of the toughest players I've ever watched. You could give him the ball 15 times in a row, and he would stay in the game expecting the ball for the 16th time. I think he was limited and never did anything great. Davis accomplished greatness. If Martin was on another team with a better line, maybe his career is different and maybe he has the platform to look better, or expose his best traits. Portis had the platform before going to Washington where he played behind an offensive line that was aging, and then fairly mediocre to below average with a terrible supporting cast offensively. Gibbs was a failure as a Head Coach.

Martin did it for 10 years. Davis did it for 4. I would never use the word, "warrior," to describe a running back who was done after 4 years.

Blaming Portis's failure to do what he did in Denver on a legendary offensive mind like Joe Gibbs seems desperate to me. I'm also not sure who these "aging" offensive linemen on the Redskins you're referring to were. Certainly not Chris Samuels, Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Derrick Dockery, or Casey Rabach.

Quote:

Cam Newton is the most talented QB in the NFL right now. RGIII, Mike Vick and Aaron Rodgers are probably in the Top 5. Only one of those guys is actually in the discussion for best QB in the NFL. There are far less talented QBs playing that are significantly better than Newton and Vick.

No, Cam Newton, Vick, RGIII, and Kaepernick are the most athletic quarterbacks in the league. When it comes to playing quarterback, athleticism is the last attribute you look for when discussing a quarterback's "talent."

Dan Marino was one of the most talented quarterbacks to ever play the game. So was a young Carson Palmer. They could make all the throws there are, and they could make them with accuracy and touch. You evaluate a quarterback's talent in much the way you evaluate a pitcher in baseball, only you add the athleticism onto the end.

But quarterback is largely a cerebral position, which is why a less talented guy like Peyton Manning can be among the best ever. The amount of material a quarterback needs to learn is enormous. That's completely different from the way it is with a running back.

Look at Frank Gore, and then look at Vince Young. They both scored 6 on the Wonderlic and have learning disabilities.

Gore is a very good feature running back. Vince Young is a bust. Running back is an instinctive position. Quarterback is where you need to have some brains.

Quote:

No. That's the Super Bowl where Davis had almost 160 rushing yards and 3 TDs in just 3 quarters of play. While he was out the game the Broncos offense did nothing. Davis was the offense. They only won that game because of the running ability of Davis. The game where he was awarded the MVP. That means most valuable player. Which is exactly what he was to that offense.

Your passive-aggressiveness is pathetic. We all know what your game is.

You have no football knowledge whatsoever (remember how you tucked your tail between your legs and ran away when I challenged you to debate me on Terrell Owens?) and you have never held an opinion that you didn't regurgitate from someone else, so you try to irritate people as much as possible in hopes that they'll get angry.

That's probably the reason you, yourself, were banned from 49ers.com back in the day.

Oh, you didn't think I knew about that? Hilarious. You talk about me getting banned from forums, and insist that it's "hard to get banned from 49ers.com...all you have to do is follow the rulezzz," yet you, yourself, were banned at one point.

Despite kissing up to all the moderators over there...it still wasn't enough.

And that had to hurt, considering how much time you spend on message boards. You have tens of thousands of posts on multiple forums, and many of them are just stupid memes and one line passive-aggressive insults.

So where did you get the games, Ness? Do you expect people to believe you, a 49ers fan who clearly possesses no historical football knowledge whatsoever, paid for old Broncos games on DVD?

Tell me, Ness. What do you think of Louis Wright? How about Rick Upchurch? Any thoughts?

Why would I do that? Why would anyone compare career numbers for someone with 4 years as a starter to someone with 1-2?

Because its crushing to your argument?

Quote:

Yeah, Vinny Testaverde, Kerry Collins, and Drew Bledsoe threw for more career yards than Joe Montana. More than Steve Young, too.

They didn't play in the system for the same coaching staff during a short period of time. Stay on topic.

Quote:

On what planet is 1484 yards on 5.0 yards/carry with 15 TDs in 13 games considered a "failure?"

Who said it was? Your argument sounds better when you question things no one said, doesn't it? Why do you think Jerry Rice is bad? Because he was the greatest. See? Your mom gave you herpes? That's weird.

Quote:

Or 1230 yards on 4.5 yards/carry in 13 games?

Or 1159 yards on 4.2 yards/carry in 12 games?

I'm overwhelmed by those incredible stats. Now, if you could just extrapolate those numbers into 16 game seasons that would be great.

Quote:

Or two backs combining for 1935 yards on 4.7 yards/carry and 20 TDs on the second ranked rushing attack in the NFL in 2005 (Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson) in 15 games?

They had a great team. If Davis was there? Probably a Super Bowl appearance at the very least. Maybe Davis earns a starting job and runs for 2,000 yards himself. Who knows? Maybe he breaks Dickerson' record. I think he would have behind that offensive line.

Quote:

Now, these backs certainly failed on other teams. And that is precisely the point.

They failed on the Broncos too. Throw those stats out there would ya? Or is 400 yard rushing totals going to impress you because they averaged 4.5 YPC?

Quote:

Why would you trade a back who just ran for 1591 yards on 5.5 yards/carry with 14 touchdowns in only 13 games only 2 years into his NFL career?

Those are superstar numbers. Superstar numbers from a 22-year-old player.

Why would the Broncos purposely create what seems like a hole at running back just to get a top corner?

Because Shanahan doesn't have an eye for defensive talent? Because his defenses usually suck? It was holding them back?

Just to get a top corner? I laugh at you.

Quote:

And keep in mind, NFL teams don't do player-for-player trades very often. This isn't the NBA. The Broncos could have offered draft picks. Instead, they dealt Portis, the feature runner from their #2 ranked rushing attack, to complete a blockbuster NFL player-for-player trade that hadn't been seen in decades, and hasn't been seen since.

And what did they do to replace him? They took a back in the 2nd round (Bell), then plugged in Quentin Griffin to replace him to start the year, only to quickly replace him with another journeyman, Reuben Droughns, who went on to post 1230 yards on 4.5 per carry in 13 games.

It's also interesting to note that the Broncos were looking to trade Mike Anderson after his statistically-dazzling rookie season. Another young back putting up "franchise back" numbers, another off-season with Shanahan looking to deal him.

After they drafted Cutler, they started throwing the ball more and running it less (the last 2 years). But Shanahan never had any problems running the ball, regardless of who his running back was (or running backs were), as you can see by the yards per attempt figures.

Okay, so they were trending down? That's what I recall. Shanahan with too much confidence in himself. It's probably what got him fired. And drafting terrible defensive players.

Quote:

It can't be proven false because there are more than 100 backs to have never been given a shot.

When one of Shanahans RBs comes close to replicating these numbers over a four year span:

1,547 Attempts / 7,553 rushing yards / 4.88 Avg / 68 TDs

171 Receptions / 1,322 receiving yards / 7.7 Avg / 5 TDs

1,718 Touches / 8,875 total yards / 73 total TDs

Average per year: 429 touches / 2,218.75 total yards / 18.25 TDs

Then we'll start listing the number of backs that could do what TD did. When someone does, I'll probably call that mystery back a player as good as Davis, maybe even better.

Quote:

Of the guys given a shot, they were never given 4 years to match Davis's 4 year numbers. Portis was given 2 years and had better numbers his first 2 years than Davis did in his first 2 years.

They never earned a starting role for consecutive seasons. They didn't earn a huge contract extension like Davis did after his rookie season. They were given a shot. Most were never given a shot by anyone but Denver you bozo.

Quote:

Blaming Portis's failure to do what he did in Denver on a legendary offensive mind like Joe Gibbs seems desperate to me. I'm also not sure who these "aging" offensive linemen on the Redskins you're referring to were. Certainly not Chris Samuels, Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Derrick Dockery, or Casey Rabach.

Portis had a good career, borderline great career. Not a failure. Gibbs was a failure. Do you always suck this much at reading?

Jansen was never the same player after he missed an entire season (Portis' first year). He rebounded well in 2005 when the Redskins had their best line (Portis went over 1,500 yards), but he was nagged with injuries throughout the end of his career and missed quite a bit of time.

Jason Fabini, Pete Kendall, Todd Wade and Ray Brown were certainly old. Then there were guys like Stephon Heyer and Chad Rinehart who just sucked as football players.

Quote:

No, Cam Newton, Vick, RGIII, and Kaepernick are the most athletic quarterbacks in the league. When it comes to playing quarterback, athleticism is the last attribute you look for when discussing a quarterback's "talent."

Right.

Quote:

Dan Marino was one of the most talented quarterbacks to ever play the game. So was a young Carson Palmer. They could make all the throws there are, and they could make them with accuracy and touch. You evaluate a quarterback's talent in much the way you evaluate a pitcher in baseball, only you add the athleticism onto the end.

Sounds stupid. Guess you haven't seen the rest of those guys throw. No surprise.

Quote:

But quarterback is largely a cerebral position, which is why a less talented guy like Peyton Manning can be among the best ever. The amount of material a quarterback needs to learn is enormous. That's completely different from the way it is with a running back.

Not really making a difference to this argument.

Quote:

Look at Frank Gore, and then look at Vince Young. They both scored 6 on the Wonderlic and have learning disabilities.

Cool.

Quote:

Gore is a very good feature running back. Vince Young is a bust. Running back is an instinctive position. Quarterback is where you need to have some brains.

I don't know. They ended pretty quick because they couldn't run. Had to throw it. They didn't throw the ball at all during the game. Do you remember this game? It was basically Terrell Davis running the ball, and Steve Atwater hitting Favre in his spine over and over again because GB never seen a safety blitz before. Other than that... It was mostly just Davis carrying the team on his back.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

I honestly believe Reggie Bush has turned into exactly the type of player I envisioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PossibleCabbage

I would like it if there were more successful black Quarterbacks in the NFL...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

iamcandian lives in a cabin in the Yukon Territory and writes letters to railroad barons about the price of hard tack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorsBullsFan

I could possibly see Matthew Stafford Dropping out of the 1st round

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRavens

Tahj Boyd has the best fundamentals of any QB in this class, I think his game translates great to the NFL.

Hey Rosebud you here? Need help answering something. I'm getting this strange premonition...kind of like a message in a bottle. Something about...not being able to access fully broadcasted pro football games from the past other than by means of YouTube. I mean you wouldn't know anything about that would you? I mean, you couldn't possibly believe me if I said this was true. Right? The only other way is DVD right!? RIGHT!!!???

So because Shanny had other 1000+ yard rushers after TD, that somehow means what TD accomplished doesn't mean squat and he's merely the product of a system??

More than one player for any NFL HC at a given position is not allowed to be a 'great' player?? If more than one player is successful playing in a specific scheme, that means it's the 'system' and not the player??

Isn't that kind of like arguing that any OLB who played under Dick LeBeau and had more than 10+ sacks isn't really a good player but instead a 'system' product??

All coaches choose players who fit their schemes. That doesn't mean a player isn't still individually great within a system. Playing in a great scheme that exploits a player's talents doesn't mean he's a fraud.

It's the difference between someone like Derrick Brooks and Kevin Greene. Both great OLBs, both excelled in entirely different schemes. Both were dominant in the schemes they played in. Both would have been at best IMO average players if they switched defenses.

IMO being the greatest 'system' RB in Shanny's ZBS by definition means TD was a great player.

This reminds me of convos I've had about guys like Desmond Howard and Peter Warrick, top picks who were busts at WR. But were they really bad WRs in hindsight, or were they simply played out of position??

Because Gibbs lined Desmond Howard out wide and expected him to beat single press coverage against a top corner which he simply couldn't do, Desmond was labeled a bust before his rookie TC was finished. Looking back, Howard was a slot WR and probably would have been dominant in that role.
Same thing with Peter Warrick, lined up wide and expected to win his matchup with a #1 corner, when Warrick really was a slot guy.

Being successful as a HC in the NFL means identifying what a player is GREAT at doing and fitting his talents within an overall scheme. Or finding those players who have the skillset to be productive in your scheme.

Terrell Davis is still the RB to whom SHanahan still compares all other RBs he's coached. At one point for Shanny there was no separation between his ZBS and the RB who played in it; TD was the system and the system was TD.

When a coach has a difficult time visualizing his scheme performing at its highest level without one player, that player is 'great'.

So because Shanny had other 1000+ yard rushers after TD, that somehow means what TD accomplished doesn't mean squat and he's merely the product of a system??

More than one player for any NFL HC at a given position is not allowed to be a 'great' player?? If more than one player is successful playing in a specific scheme, that means it's the 'system' and not the player??

Isn't that kind of like arguing that any OLB who played under Dick LeBeau and had more than 10+ sacks isn't really a good player but instead a 'system' product??

All coaches choose players who fit their schemes. That doesn't mean a player isn't still individually great within a system. Playing in a great scheme that exploits a player's talents doesn't mean he's a fraud.

It's the difference between someone like Derrick Brooks and Kevin Greene. Both great OLBs, both excelled in entirely different schemes. Both were dominant in the schemes they played in. Both would have been at best IMO average players if they switched defenses.

IMO being the greatest 'system' RB in Shanny's ZBS by definition means TD was a great player.

This reminds me of convos I've had about guys like Desmond Howard and Peter Warrick, top picks who were busts at WR. But were they really bad WRs in hindsight, or were they simply played out of position??

Because Gibbs lined Desmond Howard out wide and expected him to beat single press coverage against a top corner which he simply couldn't do, Desmond was labeled a bust before his rookie TC was finished. Looking back, Howard was a slot WR and probably would have been dominant in that role.
Same thing with Peter Warrick, lined up wide and expected to win his matchup with a #1 corner, when Warrick really was a slot guy.

Being successful as a HC in the NFL means identifying what a player is GREAT at doing and fitting his talents within an overall scheme. Or finding those players who have the skillset to be productive in your scheme.

Terrell Davis is still the RB to whom SHanahan still compares all other RBs he's coached. At one point for Shanny there was no separation between his ZBS and the RB who played in it; TD was the system and the system was TD.

When a coach has a difficult time visualizing his scheme performing at its highest level without one player, that player is 'great'.

Interesting that Football Outsiders has the opinion that Terrell Davis' 1998 and 1997 seasons are within the top three seasons for a runningback since 1991 going by their DYAR metric which measures every single play of every single player in every single game since that year and takes into account aspects of producing yards, first downs, turnovers, and touchdowns, then adjusts for factors such as down, distance, field position, score, opponent, and other factors according to what they say. Also interesting that none of Shanahan's other backs are on that list either.

Hey Rosebud you here? Need help answering something. I'm getting this strange premonition...kind of like a message in a bottle. Something about...not being able to access fully broadcasted pro football games from the past other than by means of YouTube. I mean you wouldn't know anything about that would you? I mean, you couldn't possibly believe me if I said this was true. Right? The only other way is DVD right!? RIGHT!!!???

I got you ness you're alluding to clips on vimeo right? Wait no that's not it, was it extremetube? Or are you talking about that one site, you know, the one with all the torrents to old games?

__________________
BK

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen

JPP is a better and more productive player than Brandon Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Is Shaun Hill a top 10 QB? Definitely not. Is he a top 20 one? Almost certainly.

Why would you trade a back who just ran for 1591 yards on 5.5 yards/carry with 14 touchdowns in only 13 games only 2 years into his NFL career?

Those are superstar numbers. Superstar numbers from a 22-year-old player.

Why would the Broncos purposely create what seems like a hole at running back just to get a top corner?

Because elite CBs are harder to find. Champ Bailey is a hall of fame player at CB. Clinton Potis was a really good RB. If you offer me Darrelle Revis right now for Adrian Peterson I'm taking that deal in a heartbeat